Letter from Timothy O'Driscoll to Joseph P. Walshe (Holy See)

We should be glad if you would be good enough to refer to our minute of the 23rd November last¹ and your letter of 9th December² concerning the question of de jure recognition of Israel. We have now decided to proceed with this matter and I enclose, for your confidential information, a copy of a memorandum³ which the Minister is submitting to the Government during the next week. We should be glad accordingly if you would be good enough to make any approaches necessary to the Vatican authorities so that they may be aware of our intentions.

In coming to this decision, we are, of course, merely recognising an accomplished fact. On the termination of the mandate a new international entity was brought into being. It exists in international law and, therefore, it exists de jure. The State of Israel is now a full member of the United Nations. So far as our information goes, 59 States have now accorded Israel de jure recognition and only 5 States, of which Ireland is one, grant the limited de facto recognition. There is no doubt at this stage but that Israel fulfils all the qualifications of statehood which are accepted in international law.

De facto recognition of a State is in essence provisional and it takes place when, in the view of the recognising State, the new Authority although actually independent and wielding effective power in the territory under its control has not acquired sufficient stability or does not at the time offer prospects of complying with other requirements of recognition, such as willingness or ability to fulfil international obligations. It is obvious that the State of Israel more than fulfils the conditions required for de facto recognition. Indeed the probity of anything but de jure recognition being accorded to the State of Israel is dubious enough as Dr. Evatt, the then Australian Foreign Minister, in his statement on the 29th January, 1949, regarding the Australian Government's recognition of Israel said: 'the distinctions between de facto and de jure recognition which may have application in cases of governments brought into existence as a result of internal revolution has no application to the present case. The de jure or legal foundation of this case is the Assembly decision operating in relation to the termination of the previously existing mandate.'

One of our main reasons for withholding full recognition from Israel was of course our anxiety regarding the future of the Holy Places. It could be said that seeing that Israel was a formally-constituted international entity we were not fully justified in withholding full recognition. It is the generally accepted view that in international law it is improper to make recognition subject to conditions other than the existence - including the continued existence - of the requirements which qualify a community for recognition as an independent State. Because, however, of our anxiety and concern regarding the Holy Places we went further than international law demands in our decision to grant only de facto recognition in 1949.

The question of the Holy Places has exercised the State of Israel since it was set up. A great deal of discussion and negotiation has taken place on this subject during the last three years, and for one reason or another agreement has not been reached and is not likely to be reached in the immediate future. The only certain thing, however, that has remained constant since the foundation of the State of Israel is that the Israeli Government accept the principle of international control. There is, however, wide room for argument as to the precise form which international control should take. There is no doubt but that the Israeli Government are willing and anxious to arrive at a satisfactory settlement in this matter but there are naturally political considerations which enter into it which have prevented them accepting any form of comprehensive territorial internationalization. We have, however, on several occasions obtained from the Israeli Government assurances of their desire to safeguard the Shrines and to provide free access to them. It is obvious that the Israeli Government is genuinely desirous of arriving at a satisfactory solution but, just as certain political considerations entered into our decision not to accord full recognition, so the Israeli Government is justified in taking political considerations of its own into account in endeavouring to arrive at a solution which will satisfy all parties.

The views expressed in your letter of the 9th December last (No. 19/3/5) and particularly those contained in the fifth paragraph thereof have been most valuable in the consideration of this matter. It is now the Minister's feeling that there is no longer any justification for withholding de jure recognition from the State of Israel. In conformity with the policy of keeping the Holy See fully informed the Minister would be glad if you would take the earliest opportunity to notify the appropriate authority of the step he is about to take. The present Israeli-Syrian quarrel lends another reason to postpone to a more appropriate time the public announcement of recognition. You may therefore assume that this announcement will not be made for at least a period of three weeks from the date of this minute.